This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 16:25; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 168: Supplanting - Promotion of Work by Former Employees

R Roles
1
Classes
4
Individuals
S States
4
Classes
5
Individuals
Rs Resources
1
Classes
0
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

15 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
1
changed
EngineerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Review
Engineer Role
C168
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional engineer who heads or is a principal of an engineering firm, responsible for the firm's engineering practice and for soliciting and securing commissions from clients.
Inherited from EngineerRole · note
A professional role involving engineering practice and responsibilities. Occupational archetype head for all engineer specializations and extracted engineer-role leaves.
Properties
Text References:
"Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, wi..."
Confidence: 0.85
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features:
  • Heads or co-owns an engineering firm rather than serving only as an employee
  • Solicits commissions and represents the firm's availability and capability to clients
  • Bound by professional ethics rules governing solicitation and supplanting, and by duties of truthfulness about the qualifications of other engineers
Professional Scope: Direction of an engineering firm's practice, client development, and representation of the firm's capacity to provide professional engineering services
Typical Qualifications:
  • Professional engineering qualification
  • Experience in engineering practice sufficient to head or co-found a firm
Associated Virtues:
  • Integrity
  • Truthfulness
  • Fair dealing with professional peers
[facts] "Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, wi..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Heads or co-owns an engineering firm rather than serving only as an employee; Solicits commissions and represents the firm's availability and capability to clients; Bound by professional ethics rules governing solicitation and supplanting, and by duties of truthfulness about the qualifications of other engineers
  • professionalScope content: Direction of an engineering firm's practice, client development, and representation of the firm's capacity to provide professional engineering services
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional engineering qualification; Experience in engineering practice sufficient to head or co-found a firm
  • associatedVirtues content: Integrity; Truthfulness; Fair dealing with professional peers
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Roles Individuals
4
Firm B Competitor
Competitor Role
Linked
Competitor Role
C168
Text References:
"Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not..."
"he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services"
Confidence: 0.88
Actor: Firm B
Role Class: Competitor Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships:
  • {'type': 'competes for commissions with', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients, Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients'}
  • {'type': 'cast doubt on the ability of', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services'}
Case Involvement: The new engineering firm organized by the four departing engineers. Contacted the former clients of Firm A to indicate its availability for assignments, including clients with projects under discussion with Firm A, and was reported by the clients to have cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services.
Composition: New engineering firm with the four engineers as principals
[facts] "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Firm B
  • attributes: {'composition': 'New engineering firm with the four engineers as principals'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.; he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
  • roleClass content: Competitor Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'competes for commissions with', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'While Firm B was making these contacts to indicate the availability of the new firm for assignments from the former clients, Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients'}; {'type': 'cast doubt on the ability of', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services'}
  • caseInvolvement content: The new engineering firm organized by the four departing engineers. Contacted the former clients of Firm A to indicate its availability for assignments, including clients with projects under discussion with Firm A, and was reported by the clients to have cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Firm A Employer
Employer Role
Linked
Employer Role
C168
Text References:
"Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time"
Confidence: 0.85
Actor: Firm A
Role Class: Employer Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'formerly served', 'target': 'Former Clients', 'quote': 'Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A'}
Case Involvement: The engineering firm headed by Engineer A that formerly employed the four departing engineers and formerly served the clients whom both Engineer A and Firm B contacted.
Leadership: Headed by Engineer A
[facts] "Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Firm A
  • attributes: {'leadership': 'Headed by Engineer A'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time
  • roleClass content: Employer Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'formerly served', 'target': 'Former Clients', 'quote': 'Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A'}
  • caseInvolvement content: The engineering firm headed by Engineer A that formerly employed the four departing engineers and formerly served the clients whom both Engineer A and Firm B contacted.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Review
Engineer Role
C168
Text References:
"Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time"
"Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departu..."
"Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting."
"In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services."
Confidence: 0.92
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Engineering Firm Principal
Role Kind: professional
Employer: Firm A (head of the firm)
Additional Relationships:
  • {'type': 'solicits future commissions from', 'target': 'Former Clients', 'quote': 'Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions'}
  • {'type': 'protested the conduct of', 'target': 'Four Engineers', 'quote': 'Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.'}
Case Involvement: Head of Firm A whose four key engineering employees departed to form Firm B. Contacted the former clients to indicate his firm's continued availability and capacity, protested the four engineers' conduct as a violation of the rule against supplanting, and indicated doubt to the former clients that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
Firm position: Head of Firm A
Relatedto: Four Engineers
"Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies"
[facts] "Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departu..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • attributes: {'firm_position': 'Head of Firm A'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'relatedTo', 'target': 'Four Engineers', 'quote': 'Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time; Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers; Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.; In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
  • roleClass content: Engineering Firm Principal
  • roleKind content: professional
  • employer content: Firm A (head of the firm)
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'solicits future commissions from', 'target': 'Former Clients', 'quote': 'Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions'}; {'type': 'protested the conduct of', 'target': 'Four Engineers', 'quote': 'Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Head of Firm A whose four key engineering employees departed to form Firm B. Contacted the former clients to indicate his firm's continued availability and capacity, protested the four engineers' conduct as a violation of the rule against supplanting, and indicated doubt to the former clients that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Linked
Client Role
C168
Text References:
"Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not..."
"he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services"
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: Former Clients
Role Class: Client Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships:
  • {'type': 'formerly retained', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A'}
  • {'type': 'reported statements of Firm B to', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services'}
Case Involvement: The former clients of Firm A whom both Firm B and Engineer A contacted regarding future commissions. Some had projects under discussion with Firm A for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place, and they told Engineer A that Firm B had cast doubt on his ability to provide quality services.
Engagement status: Some had projects under discussion with Firm A, but specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
[facts] "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Former Clients
  • attributes: {'engagement_status': 'Some had projects under discussion with Firm A, but specific selection or negotiation had not taken place'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.; he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
  • roleClass content: Client Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'formerly retained', 'target': 'Firm A', 'quote': 'Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A'}; {'type': 'reported statements of Firm B to', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services'}
  • caseInvolvement content: The former clients of Firm A whom both Firm B and Engineer A contacted regarding future commissions. Some had projects under discussion with Firm A for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place, and they told Engineer A that Firm B had cast doubt on his ability to provide quality services.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9

S States

States Classes
4
changed
EngagementUncertaintyState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Linked
Retention Commitment Absence State
C168
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A regulatory condition in which a client has taken no definite steps toward retaining an engineer, with projects under discussion but no specific selection or negotiation having taken place, so no commitment or expectation of award exists and the prohibition against supplanting another engineer does not come into play.
Inherited from RetentionCommitmentAbsenceState · note
A regulatory condition in which a client has taken no definite steps toward retaining an engineer and the engineer holds no commitment or expectation of being awarded the contract, so the code prohibition against supplanting another engineer does not come into play and a direct engagement of a different engineer is permissible.
Properties
Text References:
"including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place"
Confidence: 0.92
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: Projects are under discussion with a firm but no specific selection or negotiation has taken place
Termination Conditions: The client makes a specific selection or enters negotiation with a firm
Principle Transformation: While no retention commitment exists, the rule against supplanting another engineer does not attach to contacts with the client, so solicitation of the client remains permissible.
[facts] "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: While no retention commitment exists, the rule against supplanting another engineer does not attach to contacts with the client, so solicitation of the client remains permissible.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: Projects are under discussion with a firm but no specific selection or negotiation has taken place
  • terminationConditions: The client makes a specific selection or enters negotiation with a firm
changed
PriorClientInvolvementState
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C168
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which an engineer, while employed by a former firm, was involved with clients of that firm, so the engineer carries familiarity and working relationships with those clients acquired during the prior employment when later soliciting them from a new firm.
Properties
Text References:
"In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ."
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: An engineer works with a firm's clients during employment with that firm
Termination Conditions: The familiarity ceases to be material to any engagement
Principle Transformation: Prior involvement with the former employer's clients makes the propriety of contacting those clients after departure an ethical question rather than a neutral business contact.
[facts] "In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Prior involvement with the former employer's clients makes the propriety of contacting those clients after departure an ethical question rather than a neutral business contact.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: An engineer works with a firm's clients during employment with that firm
  • terminationConditions: The familiarity ceases to be material to any engagement
changed
SelectiveReportingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C168
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which one professional's statements to clients cast doubt on another professional's ability or qualification to provide quality services, so criticism of a peer has been communicated to the parties choosing between them.
Properties
Text References:
"he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services"
"In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services"
Confidence: 0.88
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A professional communicates to clients doubt about another professional's ability or qualifications
Termination Conditions: The disparaging statements are retracted or the client decision renders them moot
Principle Transformation: Once doubt about a peer's ability has been communicated to clients, the propriety of the criticism becomes an ethical issue in the competition for those clients.
[facts] "Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services. In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qu..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services; In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: Once doubt about a peer's ability has been communicated to clients, the propriety of the criticism becomes an ethical issue in the competition for those clients.
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A professional communicates to clients doubt about another professional's ability or qualifications
  • terminationConditions: The disparaging statements are retracted or the client decision renders them moot
changed
WhistleblowingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Violation Reported State
C168
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which an alleged ethics violation has been asserted by an engineer against other engineers, so the allegation is now disclosed and at issue, here Engineer A protesting the action of the four departing engineers as a violation of the rule against supplanting.
Inherited from ViolationReportedState · note
A disclosure condition in which an alleged Code violation has been reported by an engineer to another party, so the information about the alleged violation is now disclosed and the question of whether the recipient is the proper authority arises. In this case, Engineer B has reported the alleged violation to Engineer A.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting."
Confidence: 0.8
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: An engineer protests another engineer's conduct alleging an ethics violation
Termination Conditions: The allegation is adjudicated or withdrawn
Principle Transformation: The lodged allegation places the four engineers' client contacts under the rule against supplanting and frames the ethical question for review.
[facts] "Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The lodged allegation places the four engineers' client contacts under the rule against supplanting and frames the ethical question for review.
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: An engineer protests another engineer's conduct alleging an ethics violation
  • terminationConditions: The allegation is adjudicated or withdrawn
States Individuals
5
Uncommitted Projects Under Discussion
Retention Commitment Absence State
Linked
Retention Commitment Absence State
C168
Text References:
"including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place"
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Retention Commitment Absence State
Subject: Former clients of Firm A with projects under discussion but no specific selection or negotiation
Active Period: From the project discussions with Firm A until each client makes a specific selection or enters negotiation
Triggering Event: Clients begin discussing projects with Firm A without any specific selection or negotiation taking place
Terminated By: A client makes a specific selection or enters negotiation with a firm for the project
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Firm B
  • Former clients of Firm A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Firm B; Former clients of Firm A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
  • stateClass content: Retention Commitment Absence State
  • subject content: Former clients of Firm A with projects under discussion but no specific selection or negotiation
  • activePeriod content: From the project discussions with Firm A until each client makes a specific selection or enters negotiation
  • triggeringEvent content: Clients begin discussing projects with Firm A without any specific selection or negotiation taking place
  • terminatedBy content: A client makes a specific selection or enters negotiation with a firm for the project
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
Firm B Doubt Cast on A
SelectiveReportingState
New C168
Text References:
"he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services"
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Peer Disparagement State
Subject: Firm B, whose statements to former clients cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services
Active Period: From Firm B's contacts with the former clients onward
Triggering Event: Firm B casts doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services while contacting the former clients
Terminated By: Not terminated within the case narrative
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Former clients of Firm A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Former clients of Firm A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services
  • stateClass content: Peer Disparagement State
  • subject content: Firm B, whose statements to former clients cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services
  • activePeriod content: From Firm B's contacts with the former clients onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Firm B casts doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services while contacting the former clients
  • terminatedBy content: Not terminated within the case narrative
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
Engineer A Doubt Cast on B
SelectiveReportingState
New C168
Text References:
"In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services."
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Peer Disparagement State
Subject: Engineer A, whose discussions with the former clients indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
Active Period: From Engineer A's discussions with the former clients onward
Triggering Event: Engineer A indicates doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services in his discussions with the former clients
Terminated By: Not terminated within the case narrative
Affected Parties:
  • Firm B
  • The four engineers of Firm B
  • Former clients of Firm A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Firm B; The four engineers of Firm B; Former clients of Firm A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: In his discussions with the former clients Engineer A indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services.
  • stateClass content: Peer Disparagement State
  • subject content: Engineer A, whose discussions with the former clients indicated doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's discussions with the former clients onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A indicates doubt that Firm B was qualified to provide quality services in his discussions with the former clients
  • terminatedBy content: Not terminated within the case narrative
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
Supplanting Allegation by Engineer A
Violation Reported State
Review
Violation Reported State
C168
Text References:
"Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting."
Confidence: 0.82
State Class: Violation Reported State
Subject: Engineer A's protest alleging that the four engineers violated the rule against supplanting
Active Period: From Engineer A's protest until the allegation is resolved
Triggering Event: Engineer A protests the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging violation of the rule against supplanting
Terminated By: Resolution of the ethics allegation
Affected Parties:
  • The four engineers of Firm B
  • Engineer A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: The four engineers of Firm B; Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
  • stateClass content: Violation Reported State
  • subject content: Engineer A's protest alleging that the four engineers violated the rule against supplanting
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's protest until the allegation is resolved
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A protests the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging violation of the rule against supplanting
  • terminatedBy content: Resolution of the ethics allegation
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
Firm B Principals Prior Client Involvement
PriorClientInvolvementState
New C168
Text References:
"In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ."
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Prior Client Involvement State
Subject: One or more of the four engineers who became principals of Firm B
Active Period: From their involvement with the clients while employed by Engineer A, continuing through Firm B's solicitation of those clients
Triggering Event: The four engineers work with clients of Engineer A's firm while in his employ
Terminated By: Not terminated within the case narrative
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Former clients of Firm A
  • The four engineers of Firm B
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Former clients of Firm A; The four engineers of Firm B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ.
  • stateClass content: Prior Client Involvement State
  • subject content: One or more of the four engineers who became principals of Firm B
  • activePeriod content: From their involvement with the clients while employed by Engineer A, continuing through Firm B's solicitation of those clients
  • triggeringEvent content: The four engineers work with clients of Engineer A's firm while in his employ
  • terminatedBy content: Not terminated within the case narrative
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
1
changed
EthicalCode
rdfs:subClassOf Resources
Linked
Ethical Code
C168
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A formal document that codifies ethical principles and professional conduct requirements for a profession, containing rules such as the rule against supplanting another engineer.
Inherited from EthicalCode · note
A formal document that codifies ethical principles and professional conduct requirements for a profession (e.g. the NSPE, IEEE, or ACM code of ethics). As a document (IAO:0000310 via Guideline) it contains principles, obligations, and constraints, and is itself a professional-knowledge Resource; it is not itself a principle.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting."
Confidence: 0.85
Resource Category: ethical_code
[facts] "Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
  • resourceCategory content: ethical_code
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Resources Individuals
0
No new resources individuals were identified in this section.
Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3